Its currently amended by the planning domestic called the hub project to better reflect the needs of one of the most dense and transitrich areas in the city. The hub project provides us an opportunity to better ensure that the areas growth supports the citys goal for housing, transportation, the public realm and the arts. Recent ri there was a, ceqa appeal of a highrise in the district. And a current iteration of the plan, developers can seek additional parking with additional use permit and through one oak was granted a c. U. For their parking. It brought to light an important part about parking and it relates to cumulative impacts along the hub. As long as our city grows, buildings get built and our neighborhoods get more dense, the more crowded our streets get and the more impacted our services become. All of these developments for all this new parking has a cumulative impact. We know it and we see it. Yet the guidelines that we use to measure impact say there isnt a significant imp
Housing. We still have a lot more work to do, but relative to many parts of california and probably most cities in california, weve done exceedingly well, but we still have a significant amount of work to do. In the area of households between 55 and 150 to 175 a. M. I. , or socalled work force, middle class housing, weve done extremely, extremely poor. And one reasons why is that we, our market in San Francisco, has always taken care of that Housing Stock in the housing sector on its own, the richmond, sunset, always been areas and many more of San Francisco that took care of working and middle class families, but and this in many ways, this hearing is a continuation of the c conovversations that we had to talk about the housing and the focus is what are we doing to expand and fill in the gaps where the socalled missing middle or middle and working class families and low income are being left out of the conovversatio conversation. When homes are going far north of 1 million, we know we
4to1 raich yo. And creates this uncertainty that is going to lead to, you know, each of these projects being debated again at the planning commission, which doesnt seem very helpful to us. I would urge you to just eliminate the exemption for Affordable Housing and clear up this process for all of us and save us all a lot of time. Thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor breed. I really appreciate your comments. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Supervisors andy thornly, speaking for myself. Thank you, president breed, for bringing this. Thank you, supervisor peskin and kim for cosponsoring. I wanted to voice my support for the interim controls. I do want to echo what tom and jeremy and others have said. I really do think it is important to not bring the loophole for onsite inclusionary forward. Onsite inclusionary, very important. I would not argue against that. More b. M. R. , absolutely. To the extend that the city has existing policy and is found a junction b
San francisco that our city is polarizing. Many would argue that weve done a significant job of building enough marketrate housing, but statistics would say theres still a lot of demand out there for that housing. Same with regard to lowIncome Housing. We still have a lot more work to do, but relative to many parts of california and probably most cities in california, weve done exceedingly well, but we still have a significant amount of work to do. In the area of households between 55 and 150 to 175 a. M. I. , or socalled work force, middle class housing, weve done extremely, extremely poor. And one reasons why is that we, our market in San Francisco, has always taken care of that Housing Stock in the housing sector on its own, the richmond, sunset, always been areas and many more of San Francisco that took care of working and middle class families, but and this in many ways, this hearing is a continuation of the c conovversations that we had to talk about the housing and the focus is